Self-directed learning digital tool versus tutorials under the guidance of an educator: Randomized trial

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mehdi Khalfallah
Wejih Dougaz
Hichem Jerraya
Imene Samaali
Sonia Mazigh
Mohamed Hedi Loueslati
Ramzi Nouira
Ibtissem Bou Asker
Chadli Dziri

Abstract

Introduction: Self-directed learning digital tool aims to enable students to acquire skills in an autonomous way.
The aim of this work was to compare a self-directed learning digital tool in non-traumatic abdominal emergencies with tutorials under the guidance of the educator in two parallel groups of second-year of second-cycle of medical students selected by means of a draw.
Methods: We performed a controlled trial with draw comparing the self-directed learning digital tool and tutorials under the guidance of a teacher. Second-year of second-cycle medical students under training in general surgery from February, 20, 2017 to May, 7, 017 were included. Main judgment criterion was the assessment of the skills gained by students by means of the total score got at the objective structured clinical examination. We have carried out a descriptive survey, kappa statistics to study agreement between examiners, followed by an ANOVA test. We have compared the total score for the self-directed learning digital tool group with the total score of the tutorials group by using the « t » test of Student and the « U » test of Mann-Whitney. We performed a ROC curve for the total score. We have also achieved a satisfaction survey.
Results: Twenty seven students were enrolled: 14 in the « self-directed learning digital tool » group and 13 in the « tutorials » group. The average total score for all the students was 230 ± 52 points [extremes: 71,5 - 318,5]. There was no difference between examiners (kappa test and ANOVA test).
The univariate analysis showed a total score and a score by examiner higher in a statistically significant way for the « self-directed learning digital teaching tool » group. The ROC curve allowed us to conclude that the self-directed learning digital tool had an important discriminating power[an area under the curve equal to 0,791, (CI95%: 0,616-0,966) with p=0,010].
Conclusion: Self-directed learning digital tool has allowed second-year of second-cycle medical students to acquire skills in matters of interpretation of medical imaging in non-traumatic abdominal emergency with a higher rate compared with tutorials.

Keywords:

medical pedagogy, new technology, image interpretation, computer-assisted directed work, imaging, randomized trial.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Tabbane C. Eléments d'Introduction aux Ateliers de Pédagogie Médicale. Tunis : Centre de Publication Universitaire;2000.
  2. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness ofself-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2010;44:1057-68.
  3. American Board of Internal Medicine. Maintenance of Certification. Philadelphia, PA: ABIM 2007.
  4. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Outcome Project. Chicago, IL: ACGME 2006.
  5. Knowles M. Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. New York, NY: Associated Press 1975;18.
  6. Schwartz D, Flamant R, Lellouch J. L'essai thérapeutique chez l'homme.Paris : Flammarion Médecine Sciences ;1970.p.274-5.
  7. Murray TS, Cupples RW, Barber JH, Hannay DR, Scott DB. Computer- assisted learning in undergraduate medical teaching. Lancet. 1976;1:474-6.
  8. Renfrew DL, El-Khoury GY, Jacoby CG. Computer-assisted instruction in radiology (letter). Radiology. 1982;143:574.
  9. Kuszyk BS, Calhoun PS, Soyer PA, Fishman EK. An interactive computer- based tool for teaching the segmental anatomy of the liver: usefulness in the education of residents and fellows. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:631-4.
  10. D'Alessandro MP, Galvin JR, Erkonen WE, et al. An approach to the creation of multimedia textbooks for radiology instruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:187-91.
  11. Chew FS. Interactive videodisc for teaching radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:987-91.
  12. Calhoun PS, Fishman EK. Interactive multimedia program for imaging the spleen: concept, design, and development. Radio Graphics. 1994;14:1407-14.
  13. Chew FS, Smirniotopoulos JG. Educational efficacy of computer-assisted instruction with interactive video disc in radiology. Invest Radiol. 1993;28:1052-8.
  14. Chew FS, Stiles RG. Computer-assisted instruction with interactive videodisc versus textbook for teaching radiology. Acad Radiol. 1994;1:326-1.
  15. Jacoby CG, Smith WL, Albanese MA. An evaluation of computer-assisted instruction in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984; 143:675-7.
  16. Erkonen WE, D'Alessandro MP, Galvin JR, Albanese MA, Michaelsen VE. Longitudinal comparison of multimedia textbook instruction with a lecture in radiology education. Acad Radiol. 1994;1:287-92.
  17. D'Alessandro DM, Kreiter CD, Erkonen WE, Winter RJ, Knapp HR. Longitudinal follow-up comparison of educational interventions: multimedia textbook, traditional lecture, and printed textbook. Acad Radiol. 1997;4:719-23.
  18. Averns H, Maraschiello M, Van Melle E, Day A. Avaluation of a web-based teaching module on examination of the hand. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:623-7.
  19. Rosser J.C, Herman B, Risucci D.A, Murayama M, Rosser L, Merrell R.C. Effectiveness of a CD-ROM Multimedia Tutorial in Transferring Cognitive Knowledge Essential for Laparoscopic Skill Training. Am J Surg. 2000;179:320-24.
  20. Jenkins S, Goel R, Morrell D.S. Computer-assisted instruction versus traditional lecture for medical student teaching of dermatology morphology: A randomized control trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59:255-9.
  21. Keane DR, Norman GR, Vickers J. The inadequacy of recent research on computer-assisted instruction. Acad Med. 1991; 66:444-8.
  22. Friedman CP. The research we should be doing. Acad Med. 1994;69:455-7.
  23. Lieberman G, Abramson R, Volkan K, McArdle P.J. Tutor versus Computer: A Prospective Comparison of Interactive Tutorial and Computer-assisted Instruction in Radiology Education. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:40-9.
  24. Velan GM, Goergen SK, Grimm J, Shulruf B. Impact of Interactive e-Learning Modules on Appropriateness of Imaging Referrals: A Multicenter, Randomized, Crossover Study. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12:1207-14.